在過去的二十年以來,理論辯論成為寬廣的國際關係理論領域中日益顯著的部份。如果我們需要使用一組可信而適當的理論,來回答關於在特定條件下國際關係理論分歧的向題,則現有理論無法提供一個滿意的答案。
本文嘗試提出一個整體的觀點,來理解國際關係中的研究途徑與理論概念現存的分歧情形。基此目的,本研究的目標,在於藉由統攝概念的運動,以建立 一個國際關係理論分歧現象的分析架構,來理解那些主理論分歧的現象。
本文的討論並未解決那些現存理論分歧的問題,只是嘗試說明一個理論的爭議將會如何予以解決。
Over the last 20 years, theoretical debates have become an increasingly conspicuous part in the broader field of international Relations Theory. If we are in need of an adequate theory that provides a set of plausible and testable answers to questions about theoretical diversity under specified conditions, the existing theory, in term, does not suffice.
This paper attempts to provide a comprehensive perspective to understand the existing diversity of research approaches and theoretical concepts of international relations. To this end, the objective of this study is to establish an analytical framework for the theoretical diversity of international relations by the unifying concept to understand the phenomenon theoretical diversity.
None of these discussed can be resolved through existing diversity, but only attempting to describe a theoretical debate that could be resolved in the future.
近年來國際關係理論面臨可能終結的危機,國際關係理論的三大典範:現實主義、自由主義與建構主義的發展呈現停滯的狀態,理論與政策應用之間的鴻溝也逐漸加深,以中程理論為導向的經驗研究逐漸取代了傳統國際關係理論強調通則化與系統性的分析架構。儘管國際關係理論仍有其重要性,但不論現實主義、自由主義與建構主義皆沒有預測到中國的崛起對國際政治所造成的變化,美國學界也開始反思過去對華交往政策的國際關係理論基礎。就臺灣的研究者而言,隨著從事中國大陸研究的限制增加,研究中國外交是否還能像過去那樣地依賴國際關係理..
In recent years, international relations theory has faced a potential crisis of obsolescence. The development of the three major paradigms—realism, liberalism, and constructivism—has stagnated, and the gap between theory and policy implications has widened. Empirical research guided by middle-range theories are replacing traditional international relations theory that emphasize generalization and systematic frameworks. Although international relations theory remains important, neither realism, liberalism, nor constructivism have..
請輸入想查詢的期刊標題、關鍵字、作者相關資訊. Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.